...
I have no idea of what words Mr. Freeman actually used, and I don't trust any print media to get it exactly correct. But the message is clear either way - whether he claimed LADWP owns Owens Valley, or if he claimed LADWP owns the people of Owens Valley.
...
The difference is that, with respect to agricultural land, LAWP does own the Owens Valley. The people who owned the lands with water rights almost entirely sold out a century ago. The significance of that to the current thread topic is that, no matter how entertaining it is to distort the news, unless the town of Mammoth can turn around the legal principles under which the American west was developed, the town has simply been caught stealing the bully's water. Maybe it's time for that legal framework to change. Of course, if Mammoth gets to consume a portion of the water that flows to the Owens River, they'll be responsible for that same portion of the cost of the dust mitigation on the dry Owens Lake bed. That's one of the consequences of the water consumption. Will Mammoth be any more eager to pay that than LA has been?
Would someone who thinks "the message is clear" care to actually state what they think "the message" is so that we can consider what impact it has on the subject of this thread?
Dale B. Dalrymple
